Re: a blank node issue

On 2 March 2011 21:23, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> hey mate
>
> Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>> On 2 March 2011 21:02, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2 March 2011 20:40, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> is the message here "blank nodes are useless, get rid of them / don't
>>>>> use
>>>>> them" ?
>>>>
>>>> I would be very happy not to use bnodes
>>>
>>> why, out of interest, what specific problems cause you to say this?
>>
>> I know not everyone will agree with this, but I personally find URIs
>> simpler to deal with.
>>
>> I also wonder how to do things like reiificaiton with bnodes.
>
> if there were a canonical representation of RDF so that graphs could be
> signed / hashed / compared irrespective of serialization specifics, would
> that solve the issues?

That'd be cool, yes.

>
> also, why reification?

I dont really have issues with reification (I know it's a slightly
contentious topic), but it does allow some things to be modelled.  In
general I do like the simplicity of of using URIs, is my main
feeling...

>

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 20:42:02 UTC